Page:The Elizabethan stage (Volume 2).pdf/460

 It will be observed that Henslowe, as well as Alleyn, was a party to the contract; but it is pretty clear from Alleyn's note already referred to that he found the money, and although Henslowe did in fact become his partner in the enterprise, this was under a lease of 4 April 1601, whereby he took over a moiety of the play-house and its profits for a term of twenty-four years from the previous 25 March at an annual rent of £8. This lease did not include Alleyn's private tenements, but it did include some enclosed 'growndes' on the north and west of the house, and a passage 30 feet long by 14 feet wide running east from the south-west angle of the building 'from one doore of the said house to an other'. It is, I think, to be inferred from this that the main approach to the earlier Fortune theatre was from the Golden Lane side. The contract with Street is dated on 8 January 1600 and provides for the completion of the work by the following 25 July, and for the payment of the price in two instalments, one when the framework was up and the other upon completion. In fact, however, the acquittances by Street and others, endorsed upon the Dulwich indenture, show that Henslowe acted as a kind of banker for the transaction, and made advances from time to time to Street, or to pay workmen or purchase materials, all of which were debited against the amounts payable under the contract. Work seems to have begun before 17 January. By 20 March Henslowe had paid £180 and by 4 May £240. It is therefore a little puzzling to find a payment 'at the eand of the fowndations' on 8 May. About £53 more was paid before 10 June, making nearly £300 in all by that date. The last entry is one of 4s. to Street 'to pasify him', which suggests that some dispute had taken place. Here the acquittances stop, but Henslowe's Diary indicates that he was frequently dining in company with Street from 13 June to August 8, and probably the work was completed about the latter date. Alleyn had had to face some opposition in carrying out his project. He began by arming himself with the authority of his 'lord', the Earl of Nottingham, who wrote in his favour to the Middlesex justices on 12 January 1600, explaining the reasons for leaving the Bankside and the general convenience of the new locality, and citing the Queen's 'special regarde of fauor' towards the company as a reason why the justices should allow his servant to build 'w^{th}out anie yo^r lett or molestation'. This action did not prove sufficient to avert a local protest. Lord Willoughby and others com-*